"We should thus marshal our government into, 1. the general federal republic, for all concerns foreign and federal; 2. that of the State, for what relates to our own citizens exclusively; 3. the county republics, for the duties and concerns of the county; and 4. the ward republics, for the small and yet numerous and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; and in government, as well as in every other business of life, it is by division and subdivision of duties alone, that all matters, great and small, can be managed to perfection. And the whole is cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a part in the administration of the public affairs." — Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:38

 
As the above quote illustrates, Thomas Jefferson advocated ward-level government, something closer to the people than even county government. It is a subject to which he returned many times over the years:

• "The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defence of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." — Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421
• "It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into States, that division must be made that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor… It is by this partition of cares descending in gradation from general to particular that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all." — Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122

The smaller the division, the easier for each to participate, to debate, and to decide the course of the government that most closely affects the home or farm. When you have a grievance affecting your home or neighborhood, do you want to trek to the county for resolution or even further to Austin? Jefferson recognized that the further any citizen had to travel to participate in government the less likely that he would or be able to. Even if he did, his voice would be just one of a great many.
 
Seems simple enough, right?
 
Maybe we take this right too much for granted.
 

Tom Brokaw

In the name of efficiency, Tom Brokaw, the former NBC News anchor, writing in the New York Times last April, asked why not "… take the next step and radically change the antiquated public structures that exist beyond the Beltway?" Somehow he equates toxic mortgages, risky banks, a struggling American car industry, and escalating health care costs to the irresponsible, inefficient practices and systems to those "antiquated public structures" that we call local government.
 
Here's an example: "It’s estimated that New York State has about 10,500 local government entities, from townships to counties to special districts. A year ago a bipartisan state commission said that New Yorkers could save more than a billion dollars a year by consolidating and sharing local government responsibilities like public security, health, roads and education."
 
Out west, it must get worse: "Iowa proudly maintains its grid of 99 counties, each with its own distinctive courthouse, many on the National Register of Historic Places — and some as little as 40 miles away from one another. Each one houses a full complement of clerks, auditors, sheriff’s deputies, jailers and commissioners. Is there any reason beyond local pride to maintain such duplication given the economic and population pressures of our time?"
 
He continues: "This is not a problem unique to the states I have cited. Every state and every region in the country is stuck with some form of anachronistic and expensive local government structure that dates to horse-drawn wagons, family farms and small-town convenience. If this [economy] is a reset, it’s time to reorganize our state and local government structures for today’s realities rather than cling to the sensibilities of the 20th century."
 
It's easy to suppose Brokaw has been given a brief soap box for his musings and few on the street would stop to pay attention. However, Brokaw says that New York State's Governor David Paterson promised to work diligently to put such changes into effect.
 
Brokaw and friends may be correct that our system of local governments is less efficient than super regional governments if you accept that larger government is actually more efficient and you accept that one government would manage to be better than the average across current governments.
 
I first don't know that I accept his premise. In some instances, greater savings could be realized but larger organizations are also known to waste more in other instances. (I don't believe state and local governments would have wasted as much of the "stimulus package" as has the federal government.) I certainly believe that local governments aren't the source of the current economic troubles. We would probably be better off to have more local governments and less federal government.
 
Second, I would be willing to spend a little more to keep the government that most directly affects my home, neighborhood, and community as close as I can. There is no contest as to which one can be changed more quickly.
 
I don't even have to weigh which man spent more of his life pondering the goods and evils of government and which will be recognized by history to have had the greater impact on governments across the planet. I also don't think Brokaw and Paterson are suddenly fiscal conservatives.
 
I stand with Jefferson.